Back
1946 Supreme(SC) 29
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SIMONDS, MR. M. R. JAYAKAR AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
CHHATEKPATI PRATAP BAHADUR SAHI - Appellant
Versus
LACHMIDHAR PRASAD SINGH - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : July 29, 1946.
Solicitors for appellants . Hy. S. L. Polak & Co.
Solicitors for respondents Nos. 21 and 22 in the first appeal and Nos. 4 and 5 in the second appeal: Douglas Grant & Dold.
Solicitors for respondents Nos. 12 13, and 19 in the first appeal and Nos. 21 and 22 in the second appeal: A. J. Hunter & Co.
In the succession to a maiden's property under the Mitakshara school, after primary heirs fail, the property devolves upon the father's heirs. In such cases, agnates (gotrajas) are preferred over cognates (bandhus), regardless of the relative proximity of the cognate to the deceased.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law (Mitakshara School) - Indian Succession Act - Succession to the property of a deceased maiden - Order of preference between agnates and cognates - After the failure of uterine brothers, mother, and father, the property of a maiden devolves upon the heirs of her father in the same order as the succession to a male's estate. (Paras 127-129)
(B) Succession to males - Preference of agnates over cognates - According to the established texts of the applicable school of law, agnates (gotrajas) are preferred over cognates (bandhus) in the succession to the separate property of a male dying without male issue. This principle extends to the succession of a maiden's property when it devolves upon the father's heirs. (Paras 128-130)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose concerning the succession to the property of a deceased maiden who died without issue. The property had vested in her as a reversionary estate. Two rival claimants sought the property: one being a remote agnate and the other a less remote cognate. The lower courts had preferred the agnate over the cognate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the succession to a maiden's property, beyond the specifically enumerated heirs, is governed by the rules relating to the succession of a woman married in an unapproved form, which in turn follows the rules of succession to the father's property.
Issues: Whether the claim of a remote agnate is to be preferred over that of a less remote cognate in the succession to the property of a deceased maiden.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the order of succession to a maiden's property, after the failure of uterine brothers, mother, and father, is the same as the order of succession to a male's estate. Under the applicable school of law, agnates (gotrajas) exclude cognates (bandhus), and this preference is maintained regardless of the relative proximity of the cognate to the deceased.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
succession
- stridhan
- sapindaship
-
succession
-
hindu law
Judgement
Consolidated appeals (No. 53 of 1943) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (May 9, 1939) which con firmed a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya (June 5, 1934).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The family with which this
Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 231 ( 1945- 1946) Chhatekpati Pratap Bahadur Sahi V. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh 123
litigation was concerned was governed by the Benares School of the Mitak- shara School of HINDU LAW . It consisted of two branches which had been settled for many years at Rusi and Kaira respectively. The annexed pedigree of the family is taken from one which was proved to the satisfaction of the trial court and was .undisputed in the High Court.
BAKHTAUR SINGH.
|
| |
Parmesar Gobind
| |
Bishunath. Bulak.
| |
Tirbeni. Ram
Prasad.
| Sri Kishun (d. 29.7.72)
|
Raj Kishori (Defendant No.5 in first suit, now represented by Respondent No. 20 in Appeal No. 38.) |
Ram Kewal
(d. Jan. 1913.)
| Sarbjit
| | | |
Jagatpati Kailashpati Inderjit Devi
| (married Prasad.
maharaja of
Tikari.)
| | | |
Bachu (d. Jugal Kishor Racchiya Sia Prasad
9.2.74) (d. 5. 7. 72) Singh
(plaintiff in
first suit.)
| |
Mahabir (d. Dhanuhkdhari
21. 6. 94.) = (d. 19.9.23.)
Bagwat (d. |
18.9.25).
Rupkali (d.
8. 2. 99)
| | |
Ramdulari Lacchmi Rajeswar
(Proposita) (Defendant (Defendant
(b. 11.10. 94, No. 8 in first No. 9 in first
d. 3.6. 95) suit, suit. Died
Respondent without issue
No. 23 in on 7.9. 30
Appeal No. and her
38.) name
removed
from record).
Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 231 ( 1945- 1946) Chhatekpati Pratap Bahadur Sahi V. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh 124
(Plaintiff in
second suit.) The only question in these appeals was whether Sarabjit (a near cognate or bandhu) or Sia Prasad Singh (a more remote agnate or gotraja) was entitled to the property left by Ram Dulari Koer. Both courts in India held that Sia Prasad Singh was so entitled.
The facts out of which these appeals arose, briefly stated, were as follows—Jagatpati and Kailashpati were joint. They had a married sister, Inderjit Koer. The two brothers died, and in December, 1863, Jagatpatis branch was repre- sented by three sons, Sri Kishun, Bachu and Jugal Kishore, while Kailashpatis branch was represented by a son, Ram Racchiya. On December 9, 1863, by two pattas, Inderjit Koermade a grant to Bachu of an estate consisting of a number of villages, hereinafter referred to as the Lakhaipur Estate. Bachu, at the time, was joint with his two brothers and Ram Racchiya. A separation between them took place on December 31, 1864. It was the appellants case in the trial court that the grant of the Lakhaipur Estate was made to Bachu on behalf of himself and his two brothers. The trial court held that it belonged to Bachu alone, and that decision was not now disputed. In July, 1872, Jugal Kishore and Sri Kishun died. In September, 1873, Bachu dedicated six villages out of the Lakhaipur Estate to a temple established by him. In 1874 Bachu died and was succeeded by Mahabir, his only son. Mahabir came to an agreementwith Anandi Koer, widow of Jugal Kishore, who claimed that her husband had been joint with Bachu. By the said agreement she relinquished her estate in Bachus favour in consideration of a maintenance grant. Bachu also came to terms with Ram Kewal Koer, a daughter of Sri Kishun, who had filed a suit against him and her sister Raj Kishori, claiming certain property, on the footing that her father had been separated from his two brothers. Under the terms arrived at with Ram Kewal Koer, Mahabir transferred certain villages to her in full satisfaction of her claim. Mahabir also alienated six villages out of the Lakhaipur Estate to the temple. He died on June 21, 1894, leaving two widows, Bhagwat Koer and Rupkali Koer. On October 11, 1894, Rupkali gave birth to a daughter, Ram Dulari Koer, who died on June 3, 1895. At the time of his death Mahabir was possessed of the Lakhaipur Estate (less the villages alienated by his fat
